folder Filed in Con Younger Dryas Impact Papers, Pro Younger Dryas Impact Papers, Tusk TV
YDIH Literature Review Part One
Martin Sweatman goes deep into Younger Dryas bibliography 2007 - 2009
event October 20, 2019 comment 2 Comments

Martin Sweatman, when not writing a profound book, is building quite a nice catalog of videos concerning the YDIH and related subjects. This one is particularly welcome and represents the best walk-though of the debate, paper by paper, twist by turn, since Hancock’s careful narration here. This is invaluable science communication and should be viewed by anyone interested in the subject, pro or con, veteran or newbie. And this is only Part One: 2007 – 2009.

Martin used the Tusk’s Complete YDIH bibliography to stage his investigation, which is gratifying, and well timed. Just this weekend Marc Young and I updated the bibliography and I created a dedicated page for it, which will be more prominently featured on the Cosmic Tusk in coming days.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Cancel Post Comment

  1. Martin- Your dismissal of multiple expert studies which find no evidence of extraterrestrial impacts at the YD demonstrates your desire for there to have been an impact, regardless of what the data shows. I know Firestone, and I know Claeys. There is absolutely no question that Claeys is the ET impact expert, the stratigraphy expert, and the trace-element geochemistry expert (especially wrt: platinum-group elements). In contrast, Firestone was dabbling in a subject far, far removed from anything he had done before. You may want to push the impact scenario to sell something, but do not take a swipe at the science in order to do so. I spent over a decde working in the Alvarez/Asaro labs at UC Berkeley learning how to do parts per trillion measurements on GISP2 ice cores and deep-sea sediments spanning the last glacial termination, and found no appreciable change in cosmic Ir at that time interval. My work preceded Firestone’s by a good six years, and was published in Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Reports (negative results oftentimes are NOT put through peer-review processes in order to save trees and to respect peer referee’s time. That doesn’t mean the science is bad, it just means there wasn’t anything to report.)
    Daniel Karner, Ph.D.
    Professor of Geology (retired)
    Sonoma State University